Two of the most important issues in Alaska today are the Native land claims
and the resulting "land freeze" imposed by the Secretary of the Interior.
The question of land ownership has an obvious impact on the economic growth
of the state. Since most of the natural resources in Alaska have yet to be developed,
the decision as to who has title may affect the overall pace and direction of
economic development.

Native groups, asserting their "right" to own, develop and manage
lands their ancestors have "used and occupied since time immemorial,"
have submitted claims covering approximately 290 million of Alaska's 375 million
acres. The Natives are asking both for full title to the lands they claim and
for compensation in the form of monetary settlements for lands already taken
from their claim areas. In filing these claims, Native groups have stressed
the importance of owning ecological areas supporting their villages and have
been adamant in their belief that, in the long run, the state will enjoy a greater
prosperity if the Natives, rather than a public agency, develop these areas.

While some of the Native claims were first filed over 30 years ago, the majority
were recorded in a snowballing action that saw large areas claimed in the latter
part of 1966 and in the early months of 1967. In December of 1966, Secretary
of the Interior Stewart Udall halted action on the disposal of all public lands
in the state to which Natives claimed "aboriginal possession" based
on use and occupancy. Since the claims cover much of the most valuable unappropriated
land in Alaska, most land disposal in the state was affected. Some state officials
predicted serious losses in oil and gas revenues would result from the freeze
and charged that natural resource development in the state would be slowed to
a standstill.

Secretary Udall told state officials he was legally bound to impose the freeze
because of a congressional guarantee (made in 1884) that Alaska Natives would
not be disturbed in their use and occupancy of lands. The secretary said he
would lift the freeze when Congress passes a bill defining the rights of the
Native claimants, a process Alaska's congressional delegates estimate would
take from two to five years. Two bills concerning land claims were introduced
in Congress by October of 1967, one prepared by the Interior Department and
the other by the Alaska Federation of Native Associations (now the Alaska Federation
of Natives).

The Native claims and the freeze are highly controversial and have both political
and moral overtones. Almost any statement made about either issue could justifiably
be followed by . . . "however, the opposing viewpoint is . . ." There
is heated disagreement over definition of terms; impact of previous court decisions;
why the land freeze was imposed; what compromise, if any, can be reached, etc.
So far there has been little "middle ground" on which all parties
involved can agree.

The possibility of a compromise arose during the October 1967 meeting of the
Alaska Federation of Natives. The state and the Natives agreed to make an attempt
to work together on a mutually acceptable bill to present to Congress. Hearings
on the two land claims bills already before Congress are scheduled to be held
throughout Alaska during the winter of 1967-68. Discussion during these hearings
may further clear the way to agreement and compromise.

Aboriginal possession (sometimes called Indian Title) is the historic first
source of Indian property rights. The right of Natives to use and occupy land
their ancestors held. dates to the discovery of the American continent. It was
the accepted policy among the European nations claiming land in America that
discovery was equated with conquest. Each sovereign made provisions for the
Natives to use and occupy land they held at the time of discovery, but the sovereign
claimed exclusive title to the land. It was only the sovereign who could give
title to the Natives, and it was only the sovereign who could extinguish title
to lands claimed by the Natives.

This exclusive right of the sovereign to the land was understood and adopted
by the United States Congress, as is evident in the many treaties made with
the Indians. In effect, the treaties gave Indian groups ownership of certain
portions of land while extinguishing their "title" to other areas
they had used or occupied.

The most famous case dealing with aboriginal possession was decided by the
United States Supreme Court in 1823. The decision in the case of Johnson v.
McIntosh was handed down by Chief Justice John Marshall and is the basis for
all aboriginal possession cases today. Marshall held that while the fact of
their being there gave Natives a legal and just claim to possession of the soil,
tribes did not enjoy and could not convey complete title to the land because
of the fundamental principle that "discovery gave exclusive title to those
who made it." This decision placed upon the United States government the
burden of granting title to Natives or extinguishing it.

In a discussion of aboriginal title, Federal Indian Law, prepared under the
auspices of the Department of the Interior, comments:

Cases and opinions subsequent to the McINTOSH case oscillate between a
stress on the content of the Indian possessory right and a stress on the
limitations of that right. These opinions and cases might perhaps be classified
according to whether they refer to the Indian right of occupancy as a 'mere'
right of occupancy or as a 'sacred' right of occupancy. All the cases, however,
agree in saying that the aboriginal Indian title involves an exclusive right
of occupancy and does not involve an ultimate fee title.

Proving aboriginal use and occupancy can be an involved process, as is evident
by the number of court cases decided for and against Native claimants. The most
obvious difficulty is that aboriginal use of land differs from "use"
in the contemporary sense of the term. Native hunting, trapping, and fishing
grounds are not marked by fences, signs, or mapped boundaries that could be
taken as proof of occupancy. Since ultimate title to public land rests in the
United States government, Congress must first officially recognize aboriginal
use before steps toward full title can be taken.

Alaskan Native groups are seeking full legal title to, or compensation for,
the land they claim, as distinguished from a mere possessory interest which
they now hold at the sufferance of the sovereign (i.e., the United States Congress).
Their legal arguments for land title are based on private international law
(as embodied in aboriginal possession); the 1867 Treaty of Cession; the Act
of 1884, which brought civil government to the territory; the Statehood Act;
and past court decisions honoring Indian claimants.

Treaty of Cession: In 1867, Russia ceded Alaska to the United States
for $7,200,000. The original price was $7 million, but an additional $200,000
was agreed to after Russia added a clause guaranteeing title to the land to
the United States. This title guarantee had far-reaching effects, for it has
been argued that the Russian Czar, as sovereign, had the power to extinguish
Indian Title. Therefore, the argument maintains, when he guaranteed title to
the United States, he did, in fact, extinguish all Native rights to land. This
argument is hotly contested by attorneys for the Native claimants who hold that
the extra $200,000 guaranteed title only against the Russian American Company
and was not applicable to Natives.

Article 3 of the treaty made the "uncivilized tribes" of the territory
wards of the government:

The uncivilized tribes will be subject to such laws and regulations as
the United States may, from time to time, adopt in regard to aboriginal
rights of that country.

This wardship, as interpreted by several courts, extended to the protection
of Native property rights. For example, in United States V. Berrigan (1905),
the court said:

The uncivilized tribes of Alaska are wards of the government. The United
States has the right, and it is its duty to protect the property rights
of its Indian wards.

Act of 1884: For 17 years after the United States purchased Alaska,
scattered military posts represented the only government. During this period,
the United States did not sign treaties with the Alaskan Natives because there
were no serious hostilities, and the Natives "were too little known."
In 1871, Congress prohibited further treaty-making with Indian tribes, so Indian
Title in Alaska was never formally extinguished by treaty. The Act of 1884 brought
civil government to Alaska and protected Native land rights in strong language:

Indians or other persons in said district (Territory of Alaska) shall not
be disturbed in the possession of any lands actually in their use or occupation
or now claimed by them, but the terms under which such persons may acquire
title to such lands is reserved for future legislation by Congress.

Congress has passed legislation whereby individual Natives or a Native village
may gain title to limited tracts of land. However, there has never been congressional
definition of what was meant by "use and occupation," hence the vast
claim areas of today. Although 83 years have passed since Congress passed this
act and several courts have ruled on its intention, there is still disagreement
over whether the Act of 1884 "recognized' Indian Title in Alaska.

Statehood Act of 1958: The Constitution of Alaska protects the Natives'
right or title to land with the stipulation that this right would be defined
in the act of admission (Statehood Act). However, the Statehood Act did not
further define the term, leaving the problem to Congress.

The section of the Statehood Act protecting Natives' land rights reads:

As a compact with the United States, said State and its people do agree
and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title . . . to any
lands or other property (including fishing rights), the right or title to
which may be held by any Indians, Eskimos, or Aleuts . . . or is held by
the United States in trust for said Natives; that all such lands or other
property, belonging to said Natives, shall be and remain under the absolute
jurisdiction of the United States until disposed of under its authority.

Major court decisions resulting from land claims in Southeastern Alaska are
highly contradictory in their interpretations of both the Treaty of Cession
and the Act of 1884. An early case decided by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
in San Francisco (Miller v. United States, 1947) held that the Treaty of Cession
extinguished Indian Title based on aboriginal occupancy, but that the Act of
1884 created a statutory species of Indian Title. A later decision by the United
States Supreme Court (Tee-Hit-Ton v. United States, 1955) held that neither
the Act of 1884, nor any other act of Congress passed thus far, constituted
recognition of Indian Title or created any special title for Natives. Therefore,
aboriginal interests in land in Alaska were found not to be protected by the
Fifth Amendment, which prevents the taking of property by the Government without
due process of law and compensation.

A more recently decided case, Tlingit and Haida Indians v. United States, has
been the subject of much disagreement over whether the findings can be applied
to the entire state or must be confined only to the Tlingit and Haida claimants.

The case came about after the United States government in 1907 appropriated
a large area of land in Southeastern Alaska for the Tongass National Forest.
In 1935, Congress passed a special act allowing the Tlingit and Haida Indians
of that region to sue the United States. The Natives brought suit for compensation
for 20 million acres of land. In 1947 and 1959, the United States Court of Claims
issued initial decisions holding that the Indians were entitled to compensation.
In September of 1966, the Commissioner of the Court of Claims recommended that
the Indians be paid some $16 million for the market value of the land and for
the exploitation of the lands by non-Indians prior to the takings. The attorney
for the Tlingit and Haida Indians criticized the amount as inadequate, and the
final settlement is still pending.

The court held that the Indians had owned all of Southeastern Alaska by way
of Indian Title and that this ownership survived the Treaty of Cession, public
domain laws, and laws of general application relating to homesteads, mining
claims, etc. The Indians were not given title to the lands in question because
the Tongass National Forest Proclamation had expropriated them. The proclamation
constituted an extinguishment of Indian Title by Congress.

The impact of the Tlingit-Haida case on other land claim cases in Alaska is
a matter of dispute. W. C. Arnold, Anchorage attorney and author of a January
1967 booklet, Native Land Claims in Alaska, commented:

It is difficult or impossible to read the decision of the Court of Claims
in TLINGIT AND HAIDA without concluding that counsel for the government
were either asleep at the switch or resting on their oars, In some respects,
the case hardly rises to the level of an adversary proceeding.

Practically all lawyers familiar with the Indian litigation who had occasion
to examine the act authorizing the suit were of the opinion that it did
not create any right against the United States which did not exist before
and did not supply that Congressional recognition found essential and lacking
in TEE-HIT-TON.

A different opinion is offered by Frederick Paul, Seattle attorney representing
the Arctic Slope Native Association:

The text in any Alaskan situation and Native rights is TLINGIT AND HAIDA
INDIANS v. UNITED STATES. The court . . . had benefit of able counsel on
both sides. While the attitude of the United States, as such, has been beneficial
toward Indians, the Department of Justice has done its best to protect the
United States Treasury. Were it not for the Tongass National Forest Proclamation,
the Southeastern Indians would still own Southeastern Alaska, disregarding
actual patents issued by the United States, which certainly must be regarded
as 'a taking' by the United States. Using this criterion of the Tlingit
and Haida case, the balance of the interior of Alaska is still owned by
the respective aboriginal groups there, again disregarding actual patents
issued by the United States.

Alaska's attorney general has stressed that the Tlingit-Haida decision resulted
from a special act of Congress.

Whether or not the court in that case misinterpreted the rights created
or recognized by that act is immaterial to all other Native claims in Alaska,
which will have to stand and fall on their own merits or upon future legislation
to be passed by the Congress.

William Hensley, Kotzebue legislator and chairman of the land claim committee
of the Alaska Federation of Natives, holds the opposite view.

The court in the Tlingit-Haida case adopted the view that the treaty of
Cession did not extinguish the use and occupancy title of the Tlingit and
Haida, nor were any rights held by these Indians arising out of their use
and occupancy extinguished. Are those of us not Tlingits and Haida any different?
Most of Alaska is today Indian Title land and has not yet been declared
'taken,' as was the Tlingit and Haida Land.

There is nothing new about Natives claiming land in Alaska. Southeastern Alaskan
Native groups have run the court gauntlet off and on for the past 30 years,
and a few Interior Alaska groups have blanket claims dating from the 1940's.

Prior to 1946, Indian claims arising in the United States could be adjudicated
by the Court of Claims, providing that Congress authorized this action for specific
tribal cases. In 1946, Congress passed the Indian Claims Commission Act with
the intent of settling all Native claims. However, the commission was authorized
to hear only claims accruing prior to August 13, 1946. Claims accruing prior
to 1946 and not presented to the commission before 1951 could not ". .
. therefore be submitted to any court or administrative agency for consideration
nor will any claims thereafter be entertained by Congress."

This limitation would obviously have presented special difficulties for contemporary
Alaskan cases, but, on May 24, 1949, Congress passed another act enlarging the
jurisdiction of the Court of Claims to include any Indian claim accruing against
the United States after August 13, 1946  thus reopening the door for Alaskan
claims.

Several Southeastern Alaskan Native claims were filed with the Indian Claims
Commission. These filings, plus the Department of the Interior hearings on aboriginal
rights in Alaska (for the towns of Hydaburg, Klawock, and Kake), aroused wide
interest in Native land rights in the mid-1940's.

. . . No matter has come before the Alaska public in years which has occasioned
so much discussion, public and private, and which has aroused so much controversy.
. ..

So read a statement by E. L.. Bartlett, delegate to Congress for the Territory
of Alaska in 1944. For several years, there also was agitation by the Association
on American Indian Affairs, a non-profit lobbyist group for Indian rights headquartered
in New York City, calling for filings in Interior and Northern Alaska. The Bureau
of Indian Affairs played a part in encouraging the filing of claims to protect
Native land rights, but was handicapped by lack of personnel. For many years
there was only one BIA realty officer assigned to the entire state.

Concern over Native land rights culminated in blanket claims covering most
of the state in 1966-67. Native leaders say these filings resulted from the
section of the 1953 Statehood Act which granted Alaska the authority to select
103 million acres from "vacant, unappropriated, unreserved" lands.

When the state began its selection program, the Bureau of Land Management offices
in Alaska made an attempt to check Native allotments and titles to ascertain
what lands Native groups were actually using and occupying. However, no general
investigation was made of land Natives may have thought they had a right toyet
the Statehood Act also protected, in principle, Natives' "right' to lands.

The result was that much of the land selected by the state, with the approval
or tentative approval of the BLM, was in areas that Native groups have hunted,
trapped or fished in varying intensity "since time immemorial." Native
leaders became increasingly vocal in their concern and began taking the only
action open to themfiling claims to areas of use and occupancy.

The increase in filings that began early in 1966 started in Interior Alaska.
A Bureau of Indian Affairs official gave an interesting reason for the timing
of the filings. He said that a strong rumor within the Bureau that the Secretary
of the Interior might not accept further claim assertions caused a flurry of
activity by the BIA to process claims before a cut-off date was announced. Also
in March of 1966, the Tanana Chiefs Conference, representing villages along
the Yukon and Tanana Rivers, began to encourage their members to file blanket
claims.

One factor that cannot be ignored was the growing awareness by the Natives
of their political strength. Adult Natives comprise about one-fifth of the voting
population, and 1966 was an election year. Political candidates spent extra
days visiting the far-flung Native villages, and their stands on the land claims
issue made headlines. Land rights proved the cohesive that pulled the several
Native associations in the state together, and, in October 1966, the groups
met in Anchorage to form a stateside association. A land claims bill was drawn
up at this meeting and subsequently submitted to Congress. (Land rights was
not the only matter of concern to the association, and active committees were
formed on such subjects as education, health and employment.)

Secretary of the Interior Udall has said he suspended action on land disposal
protested by Native groups because suspension has been a long-time practice
of the Interior Department in such cases. On December 21, 1966, the BLM state
director received a letter from Washington stating, ". . . the Department's
program continues to be to suspend only those actions and types of actions which
are protested. . . ."

Secretary Udall further clarified his stand in a letter to Alaska's Governor
Walter Hickel in August of 1967:

In the face of the Federal guarantee that the Alaska Natives shall not
be disturbed in their use and occupation of lands, I could not in good conscience
allow title to pass into others' hands . . . Moreover, to permit others
to acquire title to the lands the Natives are using and occupying would
create an adversary against whom the Natives would not have the means of
protecting themselves, or even know of their legal rights.

Attorneys for the Interior Department met with state and Native leaders in
May of this year to discuss the legal background for the freeze. Several officials
who attended this meeting have claimed that the federal attorneys could not
give authoritative reasons for the legality of the freeze, and many hold the
opinion that the freeze was the result of a policy decision rather than a legal
obligation.

Because of the increasing importance of the petroleum industry to Alaska's
economy, the land freeze brought predictions of hard times ahead for the state.
Before the freeze was initiated, the state received revenues from leases on
federally administered lands, from state owned lands and from lands to which
the state had not yet received patent but to which they had gained "tentative
approval" (the next step being title). The freeze did not directly affect
federal lands already under lease nor did it affect state-owned lands, including
tidal and submerged lands. However, it did stop further leasing of federally
administered lands and tentative approval lands, thus cutting off these sources
of revenue.

At the time the freeze was imposed, the state had applied for 17.8 million
acres, had obtained tentative approval to 7.9 million acres and had been granted
patent to 5.2 million acres. This was in addition to the tide and submerged
lands which became state property under the Statehood Act. So far the major
source of state income has been from bonus bids in the competitive leasing of
tide and submerged lands and from oil and gas royalties from Cook Inlet production.
Since neither of these sources are affected by the freeze, these revenues are
secure.

Recently the Department of Natural Resources stated that the state had suffered
an estimated $1,250,000 loss because of federal oil and gas leases offers that
were cancelled because of the freeze (the state receives 90 per cent of the
rental lease on federal lands). The estimate of lost revenues included a figure
of $450,000 lost on new lease offers which have been suspended and $800,000
in revenues from land which the department claims would have been re-leased.

The history of leasing in Alaska has shown that 20 to 25 per cent of the federal
leases are dropped or expire each year. These leases have been replaced by enough
new leases to keep the level fairly stable. Under the freeze, with virtually
no new federal leases being issued to replace those dropped, the acreage under
federal lease has dropped from approximately 10 million in May of 1966 to about
7.8 million at the end of May 1967. It was this loss of more than two million
acres that resulted in a revenue loss to the state of about $1 million in one
year. However, some observers of the petroleum industry suggest this drop might
have occurred even without the complications of the freeze as investor interest
in oil leases fluctuates greatly from year to year.

The importance of oil and gas revenues was reflected during the first session
of the 1967 state legislature when a projected $10 million in bonus bids from
competitive leasing was included in the new budget. Some legislators predicted
that if the land freeze continued, this bonus money would be lost and the only
solution to the deficit would be the eventual raising of state taxes.

This prediction has already been proven erroneous. In a July lease sale of
mostly offshore land in the southern Cook Inlet area, the state received a record
$19 million in bonus bids.

Actual effect of the freeze on future oil and gas development is open to conjecture.
Presently, the freeze is stimulating drilling on some federal leases, especially
in the Alaska Peninsula. This increased activity has resulted because the federal
leases in this area will be the first to expire and oil companies want to eliminate
these areas from their list of prospects before the expiration dates do so automatically.
If production is developed on a federal lease-hold, the lease is automatically
renewable and therefore not subject to the restrictions of the freeze. Present
indications are that the only districts in which oil company activity is actually
slowing down are in the Copper River Basin and along the Gulf of Alaska shorelineand
activity in these areas may have slowed without the freeze. However, if the
freeze continues over a period of years, gaps will occur in potential drilling
blocks in these and other areas that could depress future exploration in Alaska.

The freeze affects all land disposal cases situated in claim areas, including
state selection, final action on homesteads, homesites, trade and manufacturing
sites, power and airport sites, road right of ways, mining claims, etc. Regarding
these cases, Secretary Udall has said: "When there is a specific showing
that actual construction of a road, school, airport or other public facility
is being held up solely because of transfer of public lands or an interest therein,
we will make every effort to give it ad hoc consideration. We have in a few
cases sought the views of the protesting Native groups and the way has been
cleared for the construction of the facility to proceed."

During the first half of 1967, the state made use of this waiver-right by asking
village councils for permission to use state money to build or improve airports,
schools, hospitals or roads for the town. In mid-summer, Alaska's attorney general
advised state departments to cease the practice of obtaining waivers from Native
groups because he considered the practice "contrary to law and policy."
The attorney general said that "in the future, if proposed improvement
projects by the state are thwarted by the federal government's failure to clear
title in reliance upon Native claims, the state administration will halt the
project and take its case to the public rather than to obtain waivers."

Individuals homesteading in claim areas have had patents delayed because of
the freeze, but in most instances this delay is not expected to last the life
of the freeze. Commenting on this aspect, Secretary Udall wrote Governor Walter
Hickel: "When an individual has complied with the public land laws and
regulations of the department and invested time and money in land and earned
equitable title prior to a general Native protest claiming aboriginal Native
rights to the lands in the area of an individual case, the patent may be issued.
This will not apply in areas of intensive Native use . . . or in a case where
a protest is received against a proposal to issue a particular patent."

While Secretary Udall claims legal obligation as the reason for the freeze
and the Native groups look on it as a natural consequence of a federal promise
to protect their claim areas, there has been a public charge that partisan politics
was at least partially responsible for action. Proponents of this viewpoint
point out that the freeze was imposed by Secretary Udall, a leading Democrat,
shortly after Alaska's first Republican governor was sworn into office and that
these same claims were allowed to lay dormant during the Democratic state administration.
Supporters of the partisan-politics theory claim the freeze was imposed as a
punishment to a heretofore Democratic state that had voted Republican. Native
groups have answered this charge by saying that before 1966 claimants never
received help from attorneys who could afford to spend time on the filings and
that before 1966 the claims had not reached state-wide proportions. The Native
groups believe that the land freeze forced the state administration to cooperate
in finding a solution to the land rights question and that without the freeze
the state would have shown no such willingness to work out a compromise.

In an attempt to define the land claim question, two bills have been submitted
to Congress, one prepared by the Department of the Interior and one by the Alaska
Federation of Natives. The Federation bill, introduced in Congress on June 26,
1967, includes several points drafted into the Minto Bill, a land claim proposal
drawn up in 1962 but never introduced into Congress.

In 1951 the Minto Village Indians, along with several other Native groups,
filed a petition with the Department of the Interior asking for hearings to
determine their land boundaries. The petitions asked that the lands they claimed
be reserved under a section of the Townsite Act. The hearings were never granted,
and, after statehood, a large portion of the land in question was included in
an application for selection by the state. In 1962, the Bureau of Land Management
director in Fairbanks dismissed the protest against state selection of land
in the Minto area. The Minto Bill, drawn up after this action, authorized the
U.S. Court of Claims to "hear and determine the land claims of the Native
Village of Minto and to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a
long-range economic feasibility study of the Minto lands . . . ." The bill
gave the Court of Claims jurisdiction to award both monetary compensation for
lands taken and title to lands claimed by the Natives. All claimed lands to
which the Natives could not prove aboriginal use and occupancy would have continued
as public domain.

The Minto Bill was never introduced because the state, Minto, and Association
of American Indian Affairs representatives never reached agreement on its content.
More important, the contemplated jurisdiction to the Court of Claims for awarding
title was considered of questionable constitutionality by some members of the
drafting committee. Historically, the Court of Claims has awarded only compensation
for lands taken.

The so-called "Anchorage Bill" was approved at the first meeting
of the Alaska Federation of Native Associations in October 1966. This bill also
gives the U.S. Court of Claims jurisdiction to "hear, examine, adjudicate
and render judgment in any and all claims" which the Natives of Alaska
have against the United States. The Anchorage Bill, like the Minto Bill, gives
the court jurisdiction over both monetary compensation for lands taken and the
granting of land title.

Regarding third party title holders, the bill provides that the court, "if
it determines that the Natives of Alaska had Indian Title to such lands so disposed
of, shall render judgment on behalf of the Natives of Alaska for such amount
as the court shall find to be the fair market value of such lands.

The Department of the Interior land bill is based on the premise that Indian
Title in Alaska was extinguished by the Treaty of Cession and, therefore, Alaskan
Natives do not now have a legal compensable title. However, if Congress passes
a bill recognizing their aboriginal title as of 1867, the Natives, with the
consent of Congress, may sue for compensation as of that year for lands taken
from them. At the same time, the Department holds that since the Natives have
had use of the land for so many years, they should be given title to certain
portions of this land, again with-the consent of Congress. This position underlies
the reasoning behind establishing land values as of 1867 in determining compensation
for lands taken from Native claim areas and also explains why the bill limits
Native title to only certain portions of land.

The main points of the Interior Department Bill are as follows:

1) The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to grant, in trust of
the various groups of Natives, title to the village sites they occupy
and such additional lands around these sites as will contribute significantly
to the livelihood of the Natives. No group may receive more than 50,000
acres.

2) Natives may be given 25-year exclusive or nonexclusive hunting, fishing,
and trapping permits on any federal lands, subject to state fish and game
laws.

3) Title to the lands granted for village sites may be held in trust
for 25 years either by the secretary, by a trustee selected by the Native
group with approval of the secretary, or by the State of Alaska or other
trustee selected by the secretary. The trustee may manage, subdivide,
and dispose of the lands. In land disposals, the right of first refusal
must be given to the occupant. Title to a tract that is conveyed to a
Native will be held in trust, not subject to taxation, in accordance with
laws presently applied to Native townsites. At the end of 25 years, the
trust must be liquidated in accordance with the terms of the trust.

4) Lands withdrawn by the secretary for the Natives will not be subject
to state selection. Lands not withdrawn will be subject to state selection
regardless of Native use and occupancy claims.

5) In view of the fact that Natives are claiming much larger areas than
the department's bill would grant to them, the bill permits the state
to initiate an action in the Court of Claims on behalf of the Natives
to recover the value of the additional lands from the United States. The
bill allows for only one claim representing all Natives as a single group.
Value of the lands will be determined as of March 30, 1867, the date Alaska
was purchased by the United States.

6) The bill authorizes an appropriation of not more than $12 million
to pay the costs involved in conveying land to Native groups.

The state's position is that Native land claims are based on a moral right,
reinforced by the Act of 1884, but that further congressional legislation
is necessary to implement this moral right and give the claims legal basis.

Governor Hickel has taken the stand that, regardless of the legal basis of
the claims, they are founded on sound historical and strong moral grounds
and should, therefore, be recognized by Congress. The governor has said the
claims should be settled "equitably and promptly" and has promised
the political support of the state in speeding up congressional action.

The governor met with Native leaders several times at the beginning of 1967
in an attempt to prepare a land claim bill acceptable to all parties. However,
when it was learned that the Interior Department was also working on a bill,
the governor held off on his proposal, which included three main points:

1) Immediate title in fee simple, including, all surface and subsurface
rights, given to Native communities for land the communities occupy and
also for surrounding lands which might be used for expansion purposes
in the foreseeable future.

2) Surface rights to large areas of land around the villages for hunting,
trapping and fishing purposes.

3) Jurisdiction to the U.S. Court of Claims to decide monetary settlements
for lands to which Natives can prove aboriginal title. Value of land would
be set at the time of taking rather than 1867.

The state has taken the position that while the Interior bill contains "many
worthwhile features," it does not go far enough in meeting the Natives'
demands and goes too far in restricting the scope of compensation and in creating
a "bureaucratic empire." The portions of the bill granting land
to Native communities have the full support of the state, but there is disagreement
with the choice of 1867 as the determining date for the value of land taken.

Alaska's attorney general has said that the state believes that a California
case has set a precedent for taking the date of statehood as the date of evaluation
and that the state would be prepared to support such a date. The state administration
is also opposed to those provisions which "perpetuate" and expand
control by the Department of the Interior over Native lands.

At the same time, the state finds the Native-proposed bill "unacceptable,"
especially that portion which gives the Court of Claims the right to adjudicate
fee title to the claimants. The state claims this authority would leave title
to vast areas of the state up in the air for a period of at least five to
perhaps as much as 25 or 30 yearshowever long it may take for the Court
of Claims and eventually the Supreme Court to resolve individual cases.

Another objection is that the bill leaves open the time within which claims
may be filed and then decrees that thereafter, while any claim is pending,
there can be no disposition under any of the public land laws, including the
Alaska Statehood Act. The state says this stipulation would mean a perpetuation
of the land freeze for at least 25 years, the complete drying up of oil and
gas activity, mineral activity, the building of roads, airports, hydroelectric
and other power sites, and the complete stoppage of all development in Alaska
based on land.

The state strongly opposes the land freeze and, contending that the action
is illegal, filed suit in the U.S. District Court on Feb. 10, 1967, seeking
a declaratory judgment that Native claims may not hold up the state land selection
program. The test case named two tracts of land selected by the state in the
Nenana claim area near Fairbanks. The United States filed a motion to dismiss,
but this motion was denied in early October 1967, clearing the way for a trial
on the merits of the case.

The state has also appealed directly to the Native claimants to support the
state's request for a lifting of the freeze, arguing that because a few isolated
claims may have been ignored by the federal Government in the past, this would
not happen again with most of the state covered by claims and the state administration
actively supporting the Native cause.

The state contends that the land freeze, in an indirect way, suggests that
the state government is fraudulentthat the governor would betray his
promise to see that the land claims issue is settled "equitably and promptly"
once the freeze is lifted. If the freeze were lifted, the state would continue
to select land, but not, the administration says, around villages or in areas
where title would be granted to the Natives under a congressional bill. Also,
the state has promised to actively participate, through its own land disposal
program, in the creation of large tracts of fee title land around Native communities,
supplementing federal disposal.

The Natives' position, as reflected in the Anchorage Bill, is that Indian
Title survived the Treaty of Cession and their land rights are based in law,
therefore title and compensation ought to be forthcoming, regardless of any
"moral rights" they may have.

Native spokesmen have objected strongly to the Interior Department Bill,
calling it "totally unacceptable." They dislike the additional power
the bill gives to the secretary, to the trustees and to the state, over land
they may gain title to, and they also object to one claim covering the multitude
of claims. They vehemently oppose the section that would determine land values
as of 1867, especially since compensation for the Tlingit and Haida Indians
was based on land values in the 1900s.

Native leaders have taken the position that title to lands they have used
and occupied is necessary to maintain the traditional way of life and that
at the same time the land and resources are necessary in order for the Native
people to move into the contemporary mainstream.. They argue that compensation
for lands taken from them would be used for resource developmentand
that with this combination of lands and revenues, their villages would become
economically viable and thus able to contribute to the development of the
state.

Natives resent allegations that their claims are impeding the development
of the state and point out that their inability to gain title in past years
has cost the state and federal Government more in welfare money (because without
title they were unable to develop their lands) than the present claims will
ever cost. They are also resentful of the fact that in the past the Interior
Department has established more wildlife reserves in some areas of Alaska
than it has reserves for the Native people.

The Tanacross Village claim, filed in the early 1940's, again in 1961 and
a third time in 1963, illustrates the position of many of the smaller Native
groups.

We the people of Tanacross Village do here now place our blanket claim
for the land in this area. There are 21 families living in our village.
No one in the village is employed year around and only two men have been
able to find part-time work this summer. Some of the older people get
aid but they still must get part of their food from this land to be able
to survive.

There are 370 trap lines, 9 fish camps, 12 berry camps and the complete
area we have claimed is used for hunting caribou, moose, ducks and for
trapping. Our first blanket claim was sent into the Bureau of Land Management
in the early 1940's but it seems no one has a record of this claim. So
we the Tanacross Indian people do once again claim this land as ours.

We have not had the opportunity to receive an education which would enable
us to share equal employment openings, therefore we must have the land
needed to at least be able to feed and clothe our families and to see
our children gain the education they must have.

Native leaders claim there is little danger that gaining title will "freeze"
the Native people into the traditional way of life which today means a subsistence
economy. Instead, they see land ownership as one of the keys to a brighter
economic future and thus are determined to press for an acceptable solution.

Protection or wardship of Native-use areas has continued for the 83 years
since the Act of 1884 spelled out federal policy for Native land rights. The
question of whether the Natives, who became increasingly sophisticated, were
in need of or wanted such protection was never resolved. Native land rights
might have remained in congressional limboexcept for the vast land claims
filed by Native groups in 1966-67. With so much of the state under claim or
protest, the federal and state governments could no longer ignore the existence
of the title problem.

The land claims are an indication of the increasing independence of the Alaska
Natives and of their growing disenchantment with the government's philosophy
of wardship. This movement has been gathering momentum for the past several
years, but never has had the force and direction that it does today. Therefore,
a congressional bill defining Native land rights will affect not only the
economic development of the state, but also the social development of the
Native peoples.

Although the Alaskan Federation of Natives finds the Interior bill "totally
unacceptable" and the state administration finds the federation bill
"unacceptable," there is sufficient common interest in the development
of the state and the Native peoples to give promise that satisfactory legislation
can be worked out and the land freeze issue resolved.